How did they stitch us up?

 

It was UEFA who screwed us over by waiting till the last minute to say that a written contract isn't worth the paper it's written on if they say so. 

 

UEFA wouldn't have acted had Atletico not leaked the contract details in the first place.

 

They signed it but then didn't want to pay it.

 

I hope we manage to get it through whatever other dealing we have with them.

Edited July 1, 201412 yr by 1905

Well that's certainly one conspiratorial view on it.

How else would UEFA had known about the clause?

 

The president of Atletico even admitted to the media they couldn't afford to pay it.

 

There was never any doubt about Courtois playing against us should the occasion arise, simply Atletico owed us more money if he did, yet they didn't want to pay.

 

No conspiracy there.

So if they couldn't afford it and Courtois mysteriously didn't play how would Atletico of explained that.

As soon as we was drawn against each other the question was raised as to whether Courtois was eligible to play against us and then the contract clause was made public knowledge.

With the Costa deal agreed I wonder if this one is moving closer to being so as well.

So if they couldn't afford it and Courtois mysteriously didn't play how would Atletico of explained that.

As soon as we was drawn against each other the question was raised as to whether Courtois was eligible to play against us and then the contract clause was made public knowledge.

 

Sorry but you are talking complete rubbish, you think Chelsea don't know the rules about loanees playing against us in European games? We spend millions employing the best lawyers, accountants and negotiators, of course we knew and Chelsea admitted there was never any question about him playing against us, we simply inserted a clause that if he did, we would be owed more money.

 

It's only in the premiership and domestic cups that loanees can't play against us.

 

With respect, you need to stop relying on the tabloid trash for your info. 

 

Sorry but you are talking complete rubbish, you think Chelsea don't know the rules about loanees playing against us in European games? We spend millions employing the best lawyers, accountants and negotiators, of course we knew and Chelsea admitted there was never any question about him playing against us, we simply inserted a clause that if he did, we would be owed more money.

 

It's only in the premiership and domestic cups that loanees can't play against us.

 

With respect, you need to stop relying on the tabloid trash for your info. 

 

 

You're funny. 

 

You seem not be reading my replies properly. When have I said that Chelsea do not know the rules on loan players playing against their parent club? Us and Atletico had our loan contract for Courtois and as part of our contract we inserted a clause that if in the event Ateltico played against us in Europe Courtois could only play if they paid us X amount of money.

 

Atletico agreed because let's be honest the chances of meeting were always pretty slim.

 

Then what do you know, we drew each other in the semi-finals!

 

So then the question was asked by fans, pundits, journalists alike... Is Courtois allowed to play against Chelsea? 

 

In answer to the question it was revealed, yes he can. However there is a payment due if he does... Atletico, with their well publicised financial problems said that they were unsure whether they could afford/justify paying in excess of £5m to allow a player to play two games. After all what's the point of taking a player on loan (no fee involved) if you're going to have to pay out a small fortune for them to play just two matches. 

 

Then UEFA waded in and basically threatened Chelsea with expulsion from the Champions League should we insist on upholding the clause inserted into the loan agreement. They insisted it was against their rules and against the idea of fair competition... blagh blagh blagh, despite there not actually being any clear rules against said clauses. 

 

Chelsea and Atletico's hands are tied after UEFA's threats but Atletico admit they'll come to some sort of gentleman's agreement with Chelsea over the payment, most likely by agreeing to reduce the fee on a player being sold to us or not pushing for a permanent transfer of Courtois or pursuing a 4th season long loan. 

 

So instead of saying I talk rubbish and rely on "tabloid trash", perhaps you could do with doing a little more reading yourself instead of inventing conspiracy theories. 

Hope y'all get the chance to watch the Swiss tomorrow- take a good hard look at Rodriguez, okay?!

Love the world cup

He was good, hard to work how good though.

Lets sign this lad today. Ta

Madrid-based daily AS claiming that Chelsea will land four of Atletico Madrid's title winning team - Costa, Tiago, Felipe Luis and Miranda. As well as a sizeable cash return (for Costa, Luis and Miranda), Atletico hope to get Romelu Lukaku and another season loan of Thibaut Courtois.

Miranda? 

 

Lad turns 30 in September, can't see that one personally. 

Usually, when players show unhappiness, the club treats them like indentured servants and keeps them, creating a dramatic saga like we have in the past. Hopefully Luis can go, but I doubt it now.

Madrid-based daily AS claiming that Chelsea will land four of Atletico Madrid's title winning team - Costa, Tiago, Felipe Luis and Miranda. As well as a sizeable cash return (for Costa, Luis and Miranda), Atletico hope to get Romelu Lukaku and another season loan of Thibaut Courtois.

 

Smells like BS to me.

Smells like BS to me.

Me too tbh

You're funny. 

 

You seem not be reading my replies properly. When have I said that Chelsea do not know the rules on loan players playing against their parent club? Us and Atletico had our loan contract for Courtois and as part of our contract we inserted a clause that if in the event Ateltico played against us in Europe Courtois could only play if they paid us X amount of money.

 

Atletico agreed because let's be honest the chances of meeting were always pretty slim.

 

Then what do you know, we drew each other in the semi-finals!

 

So then the question was asked by fans, pundits, journalists alike... Is Courtois allowed to play against Chelsea? 

 

In answer to the question it was revealed, yes he can. However there is a payment due if he does... Atletico, with their well publicised financial problems said that they were unsure whether they could afford/justify paying in excess of £5m to allow a player to play two games. After all what's the point of taking a player on loan (no fee involved) if you're going to have to pay out a small fortune for them to play just two matches. 

 

Then UEFA waded in and basically threatened Chelsea with expulsion from the Champions League should we insist on upholding the clause inserted into the loan agreement. They insisted it was against their rules and against the idea of fair competition... blagh blagh blagh, despite there not actually being any clear rules against said clauses. 

 

Chelsea and Atletico's hands are tied after UEFA's threats but Atletico admit they'll come to some sort of gentleman's agreement with Chelsea over the payment, most likely by agreeing to reduce the fee on a player being sold to us or not pushing for a permanent transfer of Courtois or pursuing a 4th season long loan. 

 

So instead of saying I talk rubbish and rely on "tabloid trash", perhaps you could do with doing a little more reading yourself instead of inventing conspiracy theories. 

 

Where on earth have I contradicted what you just said above?

 

Where on earth have I contradicted what you just said above?

 

 

You did and you must be punished (for whatever it is, ive no idea)

Filipe Luis urges Atletico Madrid to lower £19m asking price in bid to force Blues move. #CFC (Evening Standard)

 

Chelsea are prepared to pay £15m for left-back Luis but #Atletico are demanding the full £19m release clause is met. #CFC (Evening Standard)

I'd offer £7-£9 m max. due to his age, no resale value and only one year left on his AM contract (if true?) ... otherwise move on ... just my opinion ...

The really play hard balls, aren't they? We gave them the GK for 3 years, foundation of their success, they made us pay the release clause for Costa, and this. I say F* them, there are other options out there, e.g. sign the A Cole guy on a free for a year.

According to the Fail

Atletico left-back Filipe Luis may have to pay part of his £19m buy-out clause to force through a mvoe to Chelsea this summer.

One of the worst headlines I've read saying he may have to. Jesus I could have written that.

Edited July 3, 201412 yr by Bobbywoodhogan

I'd offer £7-£9 m max. due to his age, no resale value and only one year left on his AM contract (if true?) ... otherwise move on ... just my opinion ...

Move on and sign who?

In my opinion we should just pay the 19 mill. Get the deal done and get him over here for the start of pre season.

Atletico have already signed his replacement, so unless another club came in willing to pay the release fee they could find themselves left with two pricey left backs next season.

 

Ooooops. 

 

Considering we loaned them Courtois for three years and just paid out £32m for Costa you would like to think they wouldn't be so insistent on receiving the full buyout for Luis. 

Move on and sign who?

In my opinion we should just pay the 19 mill. Get the deal done and get him over here for the start of pre season.

Ricardo Rodriguez. He is a few years younger, on the same level football wise and shouldn't be mouch more expensive than 19 million pounds.

Ricardo Rodriguez. He is a few years younger, on the same level football wise and shouldn't be mouch more expensive than 19 million pounds.

 

Moreno is another one.....

So if they couldn't afford it and Courtois mysteriously didn't play how would Atletico of explained that.

As soon as we was drawn against each other the question was raised as to whether Courtois was eligible to play against us and then the contract clause was made public knowledge.

 

If they couldn't afford it, they shouldn't have signed the clause.